A claim • for damages, under a Delaware statute for death caused by tort extends to the ease of a citizen of that state wrongfully killed while on the high seas in a vessel be longing to a Delaware corporation by, the negligence of another vessel belonging to a Delaware corporation, and this can be enforc ed against the owner of one of the vessels in admiralty, brought by such owner to limit his liability ; The Hamilton, 207 U.' S. 398, 28 Sup. Ct. 133, 52 L. Ed. 264.
In a proceeding to limit liability instituted liy the owners of a foreign vessel lost on the high seas, the right to exemption must be determined by the law as administered in the courts of the United States ; La Bourgogne, 210 U. S. 95, 28 Sup. Ct. 664, 52 L. Ed. 973, where it was held that the fault of the offi cers and crew of that vessel resulting in the collision and loss of that vessel was not with the privity and knowledge of the owner, so as to deprive the owner of the right to limit ed liability under the act of 1851 (distinguish ing The Main v. Williams, 152 U. S. 122, 14 Sup. Ct. 486, 38 L. Ed. 381). It was held that the pending freight does not include the freight earned on the outward trip or any part of an annual subsidy contract from a foreign government for carrying the mails ; also, that in determining whether claims for wrongful death are enforceable in limit ed liability proceedings, though based on a right of action given by the country to which the vessel belongs, the question of whether the vessel was in fault or the fund liable must be determined by the law of the United States.
The case of The Titanic, 233 U. S. 718, 34 Sup. Ct. 754, 58 L. Ed. —, was held to fall within the general provision that a foreign ship may resort to the courts of the United States for limitation of ,liability ; following The Scotland, 105 U. S. 24, 26 L. Ed. 1001. It was also held that the owner of such for eign vessel can maintain such proceedings where it appears that the law of the foreign country to which the vessel belongs makes provision for the vessel owner's liability up on terms and conditions different from those prescribed by the statutes of this country. This case settled only the jurisdictional ques tion. In the same proceedings it will be open for claimants to prove that the fault was committed with the privity and knowl edge of the owner.
In Ryan et al. v. Oceanic Steam & Naviga tion Co., 30 T. L. R. 302, a case brought un der Lord Campbell's act for loss of life on the Titanic, a judgment based upon a ver dict that her loss was due to negligent nav igation, was sustained in the Court of Appeal in England.
Where, in a collision, both vessels belong to the same owner, and both are in fault, both must be surrendered ; The San Rafael, 141 Fed. 270, 72 C. C. A. 388.
The Harter Act is an act limiting the lia bility of owners. This, however, regulates not so much the question of their liability in amount as the question whether they are re sponsible at all or not. For the text of that act and its application, see HARTER ACT.
See SAFETY AT SEA; TONNAGE ; WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY; YACHT; CONVEYANCE OF VES SELS; SHIP; PART-OWNERS.